tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 25, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT
diplomatic aspects of edwards noted. -- edward snowden. ♪ ♪ ♪ tot: welcome to washington on this tuesday, june 25, 2013. at a live image of the supreme court building. the court sits in the second day of a row. those cases we are watching party marriage and the voting rights act. across the street in the capital piddling in the senate continues -- in the capitol building the senate continues to work on immigration reform. opinion thist your
morning as the senate moves to the fans the border security amendment. here are the numbers to call -- you can also find us online, send us a tweet, or join the conversation on facebook. you can also e-mail us, email@example.com. the headline in "washington post " this morning -- looking at other headlines on the story this morning -- "the
wall street journal," -- for in "the washington times," -- o tell us more about what happened last night, we're joined by alexandre, senior staff writer at "the hill." your story, "immigration form he said test in 67-27 vote." why is this key? guest: the border amendment, which will at $38 billion for border spending, the entire amendment was 1200 pages long.
it you are voting for this amendment you are voting for the bill. if you voted for the amendment last night it is going to be pretty tough to vote against final passage later this week. the people who voted for this proposal pretty much voted for the bill. we have a pretty solid growth map for how the yes votes are goign to play out. host: two of those names are republicans. why was there authorship of the amendment significant and who with able to bring on board in their own party? guest: their ownership was significant because it addressed the biggest concern republicans had about this bill, which is that it would grant a pathway to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants before securing the border. that was tried to address the thick center hoeven try to
address -- senator hoeven try to address that. the head of customs and border thisction told john mccain would meet the security benchmark, 100% situational awareness on the southern border and 90% apprehension rate of illegal immigrants. that gave cover to a bunch of republicans to sign on. illinois -- mark kirk -- the amendment also included language to restrict benefits going to illegal immigrants.
that secured the votes of warren hatch, who voted for the bill in the committee but did not guarantee a vote on final passage because he said he had concerns about these benefit issues. it seems like those concerns have been swayed. headlinelooked at a that says -- tellus about the republican senators -- tell us about the republican senators who are opposing this legislation. republicans to oppose this legislation, they say it doesn't guarantee anything. the deep distrust of washington and the federal andrnment along republicans
the place to run the country, where they say, while you spend money on the border we are not going to vote for this bill unless it guarantees there will be full operational control of before.-mexico border professional legal status is granted to the millions of people. republicans who are going to vote for this bill say, look, we are providing so much money and so much border patrol agents there is no doubt the border will be secure in 10 years. republican opponents say if you are so sure the and the pathway to citizenship, what some people call amnesty, should be triggered on achieving that benchmark, which is 100% situation awareness. you have a clear idea what is going on on the length of the border and a 90% apprehension
rate. every time somebody tries to cross the border to get caught. once you reach those benchmarks only then should pat citizenship go forward. -- should the path to citizenship go forward. we do not want to scuttle the deal. ifublicans will walk away the pathway to citizenship is delayed. expect see a we final vote on this bill in the senate? end thehe vote to debate on this bill is likely to happen on thursday and final passage will happen either thursday or friday. the exact timing depends on what the opponents will do. if they decide to wait a receipt your pull test -- wage a procedural protest -- they have
made their argument, i do not think they will draw it out. one of the big questions remaining will be how many amendments will be considered to this bill. this has been a sore subject. harry reid was blasted for not allowing more amendments. i think there are 350 amendments or so that are filed. only 10 have been voted on crete -- have been voted on. in 40 -- in 2007 there were 46 roll-call votes on amendments. -- in terms of applying for legal permanent residency.
that is something the lgbt community has pushed forward. host: on a questionone of our followers writes in and says -- tell us how republicans are part of this conversation, if they are. thet: the only mystery over last couple of days is how much this bill will be passed by. once mardfco rubio, john mccain, the members of the king of a signed on it was clear this legislation would pass. chuck schumer set that goal of 70 votes with the intention of putting political pressure on house.
if this passes with 15 or more of republican votes to the senate it is going to be hard for house republicans to argue this is a partisan measure. what we're seeing this week is an effort to ramp up the .ressure later this year house republicans are going to be regulations.ies of democrats highest priority was passing legislation. some political cover and political -- as to how at some point except the same thing. the template here is the fiscal after you had a
very strong bipartisan majority voting for a tax increase at the end of last year, house republicans then went a long with it. host: alexander bolton, senior staff writer for "the hill." if you would like to join the conversation about the advancement of a bore security amendment, here are the numbers as a good to the phones will look at open "the new york times" graphic of republicans who voted yes, you can see whether or not they were a gang of eight member, whether they co-sponsored the amendment, and whether they are up for reelection in 2014. the three who voted yes that are
up for reelection are lamar alexander, susan collins, and lindsey graham. have a caller on the line. caller: this seems like 1986 when i was a teenager. if this does go through it will be the end of the republican party. host: why? caller: 80% of the undocumented immigrants will be democratic voters, as shown by polls. it will not be 11 million, it will be 20 million. finally --o have the the family chain migration. ever since 1965 has been a total disaster for this country.
host: let us hear from don on their republicans line. residential a contractor that built houses and i want to give an example on why i believed the republicans are not happy with this bill. when you get a residential loan or a step loan to build a house you have to reach certain milestones before you get more money. you have and expect to come out and say the foundation was built right and you get the next part of the law. if we are going to spill the money to secure the border there should be some milestones that need to be reached, just like anything else or any form of transaction. when you get a construction loan on why the certain things are met, i cannot understand why we cannot have goals that need to
be reached until you move on to the next step of this. is the public money and we want to get more bang for our buck. these 1200 pages, how can anybody have time to read this to make sure there is nothing inside this bill that is completely, who knows what it could be. becausefused here common sense is common sense. host: what you think about the requirements of 20,000 more agents sent to the border. york times reminds us any undocumented immigrants can become a legal permanent resident and received a green card. is that enough of a foundation for you? caller: it depends on exactly who is the -- isn't the executive branch of the government that is going to
decide whether those goals have been met or not? isn't 10 years quite a long time to get this achieved? i think this could be achieved in one or two years. why is this over 10 years? host: let us look it's a more details in open "the new york t leo in california, a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. -- mying i wanted to say mother had to learn to speak english when she came here. my brother and sister were held back in class until they learned english. i have lived in orange county since 1955.
i have watched the immigration , and enter the county and really take over. all of our county here was union, could pay. people could work pretty steady. now what is happened is the track work has been taken over and the wages have gone down to $12 per hour. other thecial and i spent myher -- time in korea in the 50's. i had to wait two years after i got out to get apprenticeships.
after i got to be a carpenter it was a great way to make wages. we have young kids coming back from overseas and these jobs that are in the union's right now that pay about $45 per hour, plus benefits, i know that for a fact because i have been a union member for 15 years. get into those anymore. the reason i know that is because i was under instructions for 17 years in santa ana and anaheim. i watched as students came in that war in their 30's and 40's. relate todoes that this question of border security and immigration? caller: that was the next thing i was going to sit. border security is not needed the way people think it is needed.
what they have to do is e-to verify. verify. fine on anyone hiring a person and you will find the illegal immigrants will self the port. -- self-deport. and is what we have to do, you can do just that. we want to show you a live image now outside the u.s. supreme court building. folks are getting tickets to be able to get him and hear the decisions rendered by the court. those are people who have been standing in line in hopes of getting access to the court. he conceded television camera and news media set up behind them. we'll be hearing at 10:00 this
morning the news of what decisions the court has rendered. six cases yet to be decided this term. there are three high profile ones, two related to team marriage, one related voting rights. one relatedrriage, to voting rights. the senate passed last night an amendment. they will work on border security and larger immigration package this week. we are seeing how "the arizona republic" is recoverincovering . the governor, who in 2010 --
that is good los angeles and hear what marie have to say on the republicans line. caller: i'm calling in because i do not understand why is it we have gotten into this illegal immigration when we have so much problems here right now with bills we do not pay, so much things are going on and nobody is caring. everything is about the illegal immigration. nobody is going to vote for him for president now. he lied. about the e-verify, that will take 10 years. they are still not going to check for the working people right now to see if they are
legal or not illegal. the people will stay still working. i did not think that is fair. host: here are some comments on twitter. we can see a picture of senator john corning on the right, who did not support the amendment supported by fellow republicans. a listen to the center speaking is today on immigration reform. >> we are going to put into place very tangible triggers. traders the cannot be moved. they're there, they're concrete.
to me this amendment satisfies people on our side of the aisle. it may not satisfy people on the other side of the aisle but it knowledge we need to do both. >> he is one of the sponsors of that border security amendment. some facebook comments are coming in on this issue. steve writes -- we see other comments, including bob who says what happens on house now. carl on gaithersburg, maryland, your turn. caller: i was concerned about
this national id card, apparently it is one to come through for both illegal and legal citizens of this country to carry a card to prove who they are. the purses in the constitution. another thing people should fence builthat -- a to keep people out is certainly be built to keep people in. here is able to about about questions of personal ids from earlier this month. , it willa national id be accessible to an expanded, security nationwide computer network if immigration the decision pending before the senate becomes law."
this is one of the questions folks are talking about this week as the lockets honed and an amendment in the senate joins. , a's hear from joe republican caller. beler: i think it should more strict on the immigrants. i have been working for a while. like a lot of people who have been working, we pay our taxes and stuff for medicaid. we might not be able to because we keep going to wars. is not think that is right. -- i do not think that is right. probably have health problems as of like that. host: you call on the
republicans line? what you think about senator lindsey graham? he co-sponsored the border security amendment. he is up for reelection in 2014. i do not vote, for him. with the makes us look bad. -- he makes us look bad. at not think he should be voted. host: let us go to john from glenview, illinois, a democratic caller. caller: so far it sounds like it is a good bill and this is a good amendment. when you brought up what people think of the house -- i am heartened by one thing. i hear a lot of the republicans are calling in a, very adamant.
the republicans mentioned a couple -- what i have been hearing about -- what i have been hearing from all of these bean counters, one guy he was right of every house and senate election come all of these people have been saying if republicans are seen as blocking the bill than they are going to, at least for the next if obama is smart he will come out very vocally in favor of the bill, forcing the house republicans to say, "no." put first,you politics of the legislation you like? caller: normally i see what is
good for the country is good to pass. the level of partisanship requires something to happen. host: you mentioned the white house's and costs -- white house's involvement. the president and vice president are set to meet with congressional leaders. the president has scheduled a meeting today with bipartisan leadership in congress. they will meet in the oval office was senate majority leader. they will also be able to talk with minority leader mcconnell and house minority leader nancy pelosi. this meeting comes at a height of senate debate over immigration legislation. we heard president obama talking about this bill yesterday and where he sees things.
we will take a look at his comments in a moment. let us look at the security provision that calls for 20 at thousand additional border patrol agents -- 20,000 additional border patrol agents, $30 billion in surveillance technology, 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. it also calls for an electric of the century. entry, andor visa e-verify used by all employers. [video clip] >> now's the time to get comprehensive immigration reform done, one that involves having a very strong border security, making sure we hold employers accountable to follow the rules, one that provides current citizenship for those 11 million so that they pay back taxes, pay a fine, follow the rules, but
ultimately can be part of the above board economy as opposed to the low board economy. and a system that fixes and cleaned up our legal immigration system so we can continue to be a nation of laws and immigrants. we have a strong bipartisan bill that meets many of those principles. it is not a bill that represents everything i would like to see. it represents a compromise and i think of business leaders here recognize that there are elements of it they might want to be one way or in other. it does adhere to the core principles we need for a comprehensive immigration reform. now is the time to do it. president obama speaking is today. let us hear from diane on our independent line. caller: good morning.
read the amendment and nowhere does it guarantee that guaranteed to is this. the big secret is that money has to go through the appropriations committee. that has to be voted on. and if they do not vote the money there anything can be put into that bill. if there is no money to do it it will not be done. it as simple as that. thank you. steve from pennsylvania, a republican caller. good morning. caller: a couple of things, first of all this is not about immigration, this is about illegal immigration. the vast majority of americans, -- you that this is bring some more illegal immigrants than any country in the world as far as i know.
allow a a slight increase in unemployment reduction and wages for a 10- year period, in a time when our economy is struggling. lastly, president obama made a statement and customize the federal reaction when he said -- pantly, as a person who had my ancestors coming and the people who were deported when they were held, i think for our chief executive to make a statement like that towards honest law-abiding americans of a challenge to our listeners out there to get some tax on just how the will be legal immigration system was back then and how we got ourselves into this mess. i think. today" looked at some polling on immigration issues --
what theke a look at research center found. 71% said undocumented immigrants in the united states should be able to stay in the country legally if certain requirements are met. 27% disagreed and said they should not be able to stay in the country legally. 76% of those favored requiring undocumented immigrants to speak and understand. riddick and understand english. 55% support setting a 10-year waiting period. and the question as to whether
undocumented immigrants should be allowed to apply for legal status, 49% said, while improvements to border security are being made. a 43% say only after affective border control has been established. to call and weigh in on this issue, we are looking at this border security amendment to immigration reform. daniel is an independent in pennsylvania. hello. caller: there is actually a case that can be made for no border.
in theas been a ruling international court of justice that says you cannot acquire land through war. there is also an ancient text called "the rules of war" which also state to cannot acquire land through war. the united states acquired mexico land through war. personare a fair minded and you believe in international law, then there could be a case made for no border. effective make another comment. -- if i could make another comment, clear dailey on youtube, you have to watch that. cahost: on twitter --
we heard a republican talking about immigration and this border security. he was responding to respondingcorker, -- responding who supportsorker, the security amendment. [video clip] >> for now we go to the legislation amendment you offered and offer some comments why i think it does not do what you want it to do. and why we absolutely should not move forward on the substitute, which is basically the bill that has been put out by the gang of eight, which fails in a whole host of ways. i which is also be concerned --
senators that have concerns about the bill should be given the right to have amendments voted on in an up or down way as long as reasonably necessary to be able to offer amendments to the legislation. host: senator sessions from alabama. jane is from clarksville, georgia. hello. caller: hello. we already have 12 laypeople who are out of work -- 12 million people who are out of work. and they did to bring all their families. how many billions more is that going to bring in this country? .hey say it can be pretty big host: is there a limit? would you be open to having a
certain number cap? would that change your perspective on it? caller: i do not think so. i think when you do something illegal, that is the law. what do we have laws for? thank you. host: let us hear from ruby from virginia beach, virginia. caller: she is about one-third right. this bill says that they will or shall or maybe money spent on the border. it is true that the money has to be appropriated. that does not mean it will not be appropriated. even if it was appropriated that does not mean that homeland security -- i sued homeland security because they would not let them enforce our laws. you can have all of the port security not funded.
country areof this not allowed to be enforced, then we have no security. bill is just a trojan horse that is being hurried through because they know the majority of american people that are here as american citizens -- how can you pay for 40 million more people and not have health care costs go up? open your eyes and wake up. the money is not appropriate, probably will not be appropriated, and even if it is appropriate to how are they going to of forces? ist is not enforcement, that the security of defense a much.
host: on taking a look at some other stories in the news this morning, courtesy of "the museum" we see "the herald closed " looking at the massachusetts senate race be it is today, the special election of the u.s. senate race in massachusetts pull of a statewide there. pool ofssachusetts -- it is his first run for public office. --e boston herald" says
looking at other stories, the supreme court, one of the decisions they made yesterday was on a college affirmative action case. usa today says their decision has no clear winners or losers. their decision on college affirmative action programs was notable for what it did not say as for what it did. the court to not strike down the use of racial preferences in university admissions. the justices provided no details on what went on behind the scene during the two hundred 57 days it took to produce. in the and the ruling was less on either side -- less than
either side hoped for. both sides are claiming victory. you can see a photograph of students and visitors on the campus of university of texas. businesses. the a sharply divided supreme court -- three cases, including workplace discrimination. justices will hear a case of president obama's recess appointments. we see this in "the new york times" -- turning to the story of edward snowden, russia is rejecting the united states demand for his extradition. the foreign minister of russia has rejected the united states
domestic extradite the nsa leaker. moscow whilein trying to of a u.s. justice. he has not crossed the russian border and russia says they have nothing to do with him. meanwhile the white house attack in china for allowing snowden to leave, the u.s. says relations will be damaged and this location is still uncertain. comments for you, let us hear from rosa from jacksonville, florida. personally isnion i agree with the border security that we do need to have them. i also see on one part that you read a few minutes ago that for 49% agree on giving status to
people before -- until the board of securities are placed. we have people here, 10 or 15 years. let us say we never come to a conclusion of a correct border security that everybody is satisfied with. what happens with these people? taxes,e paying their they are undocumented people, illegal people that are paying their taxes, trying to do whatever is best to perform for the country that is keeping them who fruit and whole and everything. why not give a precise as to these people? it would give a better economy to the auto industry, the -- the carndustry,
doesn't even belong to them. those are my points. we need to do what is best for the country that has sheltered them, why not give the possibility before this supporter is secured? if we never see it we will never come to the conclusion that everybody is happy. comment on facebook -- let us go to matt who says -- tony, republican, hello. caller: i would like to make some very important point here. all of the senators have come out for the millions of these illegals. the use false social security
numbers to work and that is how they are paying taxes. using a false security number is a felony. when an american uses a false social security number it is a felony and they go to jail and when they come back out of jail the news servites -- the lose their rights to votes. should give them rights americans have lost for doing the same thing. it is not fair at all and everybody says they are working and paying taxes. >> how are they pay their taxes unless they're doing it illegally? everything they do is illegal and yet we are supposed to do all this? is all illegal. if somebody comes in to me and says, "here is my new social
>> there are 1400 monuments and markers on the battlefield. as the men who fought in this battle get older they wanted to make sure what they did here was remembered. they are going to do that by building monuments. in the 20th and 20% 3 we have ways of commemorating things like that. back in those days that is how they commemorated the service. these are monuments. there are leaders. most of the monuments are union monuments. .e are in a northern state
by the time the war ends there is not a lot of money to the south to build monuments. oft: live all day coverage the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. followed at 5:30 with your calls and tweets. at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with -- dramatic i readings of eyewitness accounts of the battle. more calls and tweets with peter carmichael, all day
sunday on "american history tv." >> "washington journal" continues. weir's herewithmike pompeo. energy for about moment. the plan -- the president plans to call for carbon cuts. that is the headline today. we expect the president unveiled a climate change plan. it will likely take a long, global view, reporting by david jackson. what are you getting a sense of so far. what you think about it? >> we have seen in pretty good idea of what he is when to speak this afternoon in georgia. what this discussion has done since my time in the congress is he has attacked fossil fuels
with his aim to have an impact on climate change. if it turns out to be right it is went to drive up the cost of energy for folks who could afford it and it is this going to do nothing to solve one of the most enormous problems in our country, and that is jobs. as i understand the outline of his program is basically unilateral economic region to the united states is going to put those burdens on our companies and small businesses, helping consumers to figure out .ow to heat their homes it is not a policy that makes sense for america. i understand why the president is trying to do this with out congress. both sides of the aisle have rejected this policy. it isnderstand it right, in an enormous tax on and she
and america and she. -- on energy and american energy. a speech the president announced a plan to reduce climate -- carbon emissions. leader?he u.s. be a should the united states show other countries how efficiencies can be made, rather than waiting for china, india to catch up? guest: of course, and we have been an amazing leader. our technologies are world- class. historicalas a wealthy as ours always find ways to produce more products. companies have it in their post -- in their best interest to reduce total cost and energy.
we were trying to figure out how to run our machines your hours every day, all to reduce energy consumption. those are the fundamental tenets of running any good manufacturing boots. the national policy puts a direct burden. that is job district for the and that states. >> "the financial times close look shows as a chart of electricity generation -- financial times" shows us a chart of electricity generation -- ideal pie chart for you? guest: i do not think any of us know. that is the great thing of america, we do not have a government that says we will tweak this up and that down.
so we have substantially more natural gas. tohave figured out how produce natural gas in a very affordable way. tens of thousands of jobs created in the old and that's it. if you lived in alaska for a alle or in pennsylvania, these places have enormous wealth creation for the state. these are the implications of american energy growth -- these implications of american energy growth are important and positive. the sadness is for those energy sources, the reason they are so small today is because they are affordable. it is not because anybody have anything against solar wind or any of the screen agenda items. it is because they are expensive. consumers will reject that energy any time they are given the freedom to choose because of price.
host: if you like to talk to congressman mike pompeo from kansas, we have steve on the line from brooklyn, democrats' line. caller: what i find troubling energy useg our based entirely on cost benefit analysis. he said we are going to unilaterally disarm countries that will put carbon in the air, as if we want to compete with that. everything you said this morning has to do with a cost-benefit we will lose- jobs, it will cost money. i did not have any acknowledgement towards carbon changes or carbon in the
atmosphere as something that is important and something we need to limit. do you agree global warming is a problem at all? guest: thank you for your question very much. i think the science needs to continue to develop. i am happy to continue to look at it. there is some who think we are warming, some who think we are cooling. some who think the last few years have been stable. we should absolutely consider a full range of cost and benefit. there is environmental law where we have considered all of the cost associated with every activity in america. on twitterh rice and -- twitterh writes in on -- he is guessing what the administration will be talking about in the coming weeks and
months. guest: i am really bad at the prediction game. policyht a reasonable would have been approved months ago. the section of the keystone pipeline that runs through kansas is already in place. we still have clean air and safe drinking water. the argument that that energy from canada will be left in the ground -- the senator said we should not produce these so- called tarzan's. energyeither wrap that south, out of canada, into china. or we can bring it to america and do good things for our country. i hope the president will approve it. i would love to hear him say that today at georgetown. it would be good for american consumers. host: politico has a story this
week that the president's plan made ricochet. -- surrounding her confirmation to be epa administrator." this is the senate's possibility -- senate's responsibility but what is your perspective? guest: she has testified on the committee i sit down a couple of times. said some things her predecessor -- better than her predecessor said. she is a deepat believer in command and control economy that you can direct from the top down and an american energy policy. from her station that does not make sense to me.
the epa is not the american energy source for policy. they have really taken over the president's energy agenda. i think she will ultimately be confirmed. i hope that when she does so she will be cognizant of the real need of economic growth. it is tough out there for young people to find jobs and part of that challenge is the regulatory environment that really crutches' small businesses across america. let us go to susan on the independent line. guest: i have a varied background but part of it is in the '80s i worked at the american energy institute. at that time solar energy was unaffordable and undeveloped. it has gotten down to the point where we can almost afford it and the pared in seven years to produce solar that produces 80%
of your electric power on the roof. the county i live in, about three weeks before i actually tried to do this in my house, prohibited it unless you could have a 5 foot walk around space around the solar collectors for inspections. there is nothing to inspect their. i was ready to jump on that bandwagon and to the right thing like they are doing all over europe. i was not allowed to because my local government decided it was a bad idea not to be able to walk around and inspect. think that consumers would use wind, etc. if they had a little bit better handle on it at the local government level. what i have done for many years is use windows and curtains to
collect sun in the wind her here -- in the winter, locking them in the summer. corporate america could do a lot of that by just making them a little bit more friendly to the environment by blocking that fund. guest: first of all, i don't want to get involved in a local government issues but you're absolutely right -- local governments often put in rules and regulations that make no sense. you're also right about the cost of solar energy. it has absolutely come down and is more affordable today and, in certain settings, it is competitive like in residential settings and large. use of energy. it makes wonderful economic sense. that is precisely what i am speaking out. we should not drive through
rulemaking and executive actions. we should encourage those solar companies to go out and that -- make the best channels and receptors, all the tools beckham get that power to the place is needed and when we do that, people like you go use it. they will decide is a good economic return or of good social importance and consumers will move in that direction. that is the right way to go and i hope we don't have more things to stand in the way of good energy decisions. pompeo ngressman mike from kansas is our guest. guest: i have 17 total counties in the fourth county of kansas. host: this is his second term and he also ran century international which is an oil- field equipment manufacturer
distribution and service company and co-founded and aerospace company. he also served as an officer in the u.s. army. let's go to louisville, kentucky, a republican. caller: good morning, cspan. i have a couple of points to make with the congressmen. i am somewhat confused rout i'm an engineer and i've got five united states patents dealing with environmental control systems. spectroscopy with and others. if you look at a periodic chart of the elements, you can see with everything waist and held as affected by gravity. we are saying that co2 is the culprit. we're talking about co2 somehow getting in the upper atmosphere if and reflecting heat back down to the earth, causing global warming. co2 can be looked at for its weight.
carbon andatom of two atoms of oxygen. from the periodic chart of the elements, that is 44.44. 80%atmosphere is made up of nitrogen and 20% oxygen. teachingappreciate you us something but get to the point. caller: the point is co2 is heavier than our atmosphere. how can it get up there? how can a cause a reflection of heat back down to the earth? when it is heavier than air? maybe somebody can answer that for me. host: let's ago guest: with that it sounds like you know more about the science. the science.
from a policy-making perspective, i think you have made my point. our obligation is to find the smartest folks out there who can tell us what is really going on with respect to climate change. i have read countless studies. they disagree. they disagree about the history and our climate has changed over time and some of the tactical science of dispersion of heat. we need to find a consensus and then find a set of policies that responded with it is responsible so we can continue to grow our economy and create economic growth for that next generation. air and safe drinking water but i think we can accomplish all of those. the president's policies today are very much akin to what is going on in california. they have now placed a cap and trade policy into effect. i grew up in california. that will be incredibly destructive to the california
economy. it will drive up the cost of every activity whether you are the people who have difficulty paying utility bills or a big company trying to figure out how to make product in america and create jobs. those are not the policies that will ultimately lead to clean air and safe drinking water. they will take us backwards. host: here is a tweet -- "the washington post"shows a map of carbon pricing and some sort of economic model. you can see this world bank report. guest: we've got carbon pricing schemes and america and i would
be surprised if china does this. they are putting out mostly coal fire plants at enormous rate which is fueling a% economic growth and they recognize to compete globally in america, you've got to have safe and abundant affordable energy. as if itlk about coal is the primary driver. our coal-fired power plants have become much clearer over the last few decades. it is sometimes in response to economic and sometimes in response to regulation. no one is arguing that the coal- fired power plants cannot continue to improve. we should create an environment where that is possible and likely for them to do. we've got to have affordable energy in america and i know the chinese think they do as well. host: president obama will make a speech of climate change in greenhouse gas legislation started to start this afternoon at 1:15 eastern time and we will
break -- broadcast it live on c- span 3. if he is speaking at georgetown university. wisconsin, a democrat, you are next. caller: good morning, i am against the continued use of carbon fuels at the rate we are right now. i look at the rest of the world that is jumping ahead of us in renewable energy. because of the carbon fuel industry. i look at you as a representative of a group of people who are supported by this industry and you are being paid to push their policies. you talk about jobs and everything -- i would ask you -- personally ask a call minor if he would rather live his life in a whole or whether he would prefer a installing a solar panels or maintaining wind
generators, sir. and other things that are renewable. i put the question to you -- when you talk about jobs, you are not including the jobs that the new industries would be supporting. guest: thank you for that comment. i want every job and every energy source you can possibly imagine. of winde've got lots manufacturing in kansas. without taxpayer support, those energy sources are not even close to competitive. i hope they will get there. a smart engineer and capable people are working in solar, wind, algae and other energy sources out there. we should let the market's drive that and that is important. coalobs you refer to, the miners job is just as important as someone working in silicon valley developing the latest soter -- solar panels for latest
software that drives an efficient wind turbine. those jobs are of equal points and it is incredibly important that we can have affordable energy. when you talk about these alterative energy sources, you -- if you are willing to travel some was energy bill, you can mandate when under% of our energy comes from a wind or the 15% of our energy comes from wind. if you can tell the american people that you want to triple their energy bills, i don't think many folks in america are prepared to do that. host: our guest is representative guestpompeo says on the energy committee and the select intelligence committee for it let's turn to intelligence. the latest story from the associated press on edson evident. it's as the russian foreign minister has rejected u.s. demands to extradite edward some added. he has crossed the russian border and russia has nothing to do with them.
what would you do if you were the eid blok -- obama administration? guest: we have run into a place where mr. snowden is a felon and has led the united states. i would do everything in my power to bring him back to the united states to prosecute him and bring justice to them. he did real harm to our country. he put our soldiers at risk and has put folks in the homeland at risk and whether that was diplomatic pressure or legal or economic pressure, wherever we can locate mr. snowden, i would find him and use all legal power you have in the presidency to make sure he came back and served just as in the united states. host: you joined the select intelligence committee this term. how has it been to get the insight of that panel? how did you talk to your constituents back, given the fact that you know things that you cannot share publicly and things you didn't even know when year ago?
thet: that is one of challenges as someone who sets where i now have access to significant important classified information. i do everything i can to explain to the folks in the fourth districtwide as matters and what programs the nsa matter and why the department of defense and intelligence community matter and the impact is having on our lives in america every day. there is certainly things i am not permitted to share but i talk about things as close to bat line is i can get. i want them to know and understand what their government is doing. that is important to democracy. it is absolutely true that american foreign policy cannot be conducted without secrets. we should keep those as few as weekend. many things i've seen better classified but have no business being classified and we should work to de-classified them. i go back to kansas and talk to people about why this matters. host: you have experience in the
east because when you were an officer in the army, you patrolled the iron curtain area. before the fall of the berlin wall. what should the u.s. relationship with russia be right now? how hard should president obama push the president of russia? guest: vladimir putin is not a friend of the united states which is not a surprise. he comes out of the intelligence apparatus and the -- in the old soviet world, when i was a young lieutenant patrolling the border, we were at war with them. and there areess places where russia and america can work together. we have enormous trade with them and there are enormous opportunities with cooperation but he has found his nose at this president by not responding to us with respect to mr. snowden. we have never revoked his passport. the russians should send him
back to america. host: 02 or independent line, new york. caller: china is the largest producer of carbon. the u.s. emissions of carbon have been going down where as china and other countries have been going up a lot. isn you look at what important is trade. if we simply shift the production of carbon intensive emiting activities to other countries and import those products, it does not lower co2 emissions globally. we're talking about global warming for a reason when you look at this issue, it is really key to look at the trade impact you will see. unless you are going to do something about imports, all the viewers should think about this in a very simplistic way. it is cheaper to produce carbon summer house and if we allow those products to be imported into this country, you'll shift economic activity and carbon emissions overseas.
i think that is key here. that's what i wanted to say. guest: i agree. i remember a hearing with the former administrator of the epa, mrs. jackson, 10.5 years ago, and we discussed this same issue. there was a member that said if we put these rules in place, the plant will move from san diego across the border into mexico. we will do nothing to reduce global emissions and less healthful air for the people in california. this has to be addressed in that context. host: oklahoma, republican, go ahead caller toller: i did the process convert cke to the process for coal and the carbon tissue is in
play again. instead of the carbon going into the atmosphere, it is being used to enhance oil recovery. carbon and carbon dioxide is the elixir of life. for vegetation and food supply. areal warming alarmists somewhat uninformed propagandists. they want to make carbon dioxide the bad guy whenever it is required for vegetation growth. there are studies on optimum amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plant growth. it is three times what it is currently. optimum plant growth compared to other parts per
million that it is today. guest: i appreciate your comments. i'm glad you are in kansas. companiests of energy working hard for alternate uses for co2 whether it is enhanced over-coverage or carbon capture. they are working and the technology is getting better. it is not economic today in many circumstances but in others, it is. i hope the technology gets better and we continue to find good uses for co2. host: recently traveled to guantanamo bay, cuba to the detention center. what did you learn and what did you think about the president's renewed call to close guantanamo bay? guest: i went the very day after the president had spoken. he had promised to close
guantanamo bay. the truth of the matter is the president has not offered an alternative. when you see that facility, you realize we've got some folks there who have already killed thousands of americans. we have released detainees from the facility before. no one disputes that at least 1/4 of those have returned to terrorism. they have undoubtedly kill people as a result of those releases. think will bei around for awhile in the sense that i, for one, will not advocate bringing them back to the united states for the detention agreements with the countries that might take some of these folks back to not provide any assurance that these folks want research -- return to the terrorism battlefield. i have for the president talk about closing guantanamo bay but he provides literally no alternative.
the facility is run by a group called a joint task force. it is all branches of the military. these are amazing young people running that facility in a way that of every american could go down there, they would be proud of the operation. they are taking care of those prisoners and there is a medical team on site for detainee's. i am very proud of the way the young people go down and run that. it is mostly young folks down there managing the facility and they are doing an excellent job host: to the hunger strikes concern you? guest: of course, but we have hundred strikes in united states presence as well. it is a political tool to rouse the left and create angst among the american people. i wish they were not hunger strikes but a decision by a prisoner not to receive nutrition we are providing to them is their decision. these are political actions,
trying to get at the will of the american people who continue to fight the war and terrorism host: what do you think about this story in "the washington post." ?" the parents have been waiting for years to get him back. is this a viable option? guest: i know the story. i would rather not comment on that this morning. host: tear from new rochelle, new york, democratic column. caller: good morning, a quick comment on coleman from oklahoma. there has been a lot of propaganda and he said the environmentalist community has been buying this regarding co2.
actually, people liked rex tellerson from axon has recently come out and said yes, that the byproduct of burning oil and coal, co2, we know it causes global warming. that comes from him fromexxon and it is not a burning of oil or coal problem. it is an engineering problem. it is a problem for us as a society that we have not figured out how to capture, contain, or if sea levels rise, build levees and dams big enough to keep ourselves from behind the rising sea levels. he acknowledges that oil causes an issue. burning oil causes climate change. he understands that and that exxon.om the ceo of you can look it up s.
when they say this is a propaganda credit by the environmentalist community who are not educated, that is turning the issue upside down. that is a responsibility to people like senator james inhofe because he has been out there saying that climate scientists are doing this because they have a greed motive as if the oil community does not. that is the reason why scientists who have been lying about climate change rather than maybe it's the other way around it -- maybe the oil and coal industry might have an economic -- economic motive to lie about climate change host: this is a tweed -- guest: someone's mouth of in producing science to me is not very relevant. -- someone's motives in
producing signs to me is not very relevant. what's important is they are working together. is the science could? did that day to produced turn out to be reliable and can another scientist reproduced that? those of the things one looks for as a policymaker. who founded a particular subject is fun for people to talk about. it is much less important to make who funded a particular study. there are oil companies of the different views and academia as different views and we have an awful lot to learn about the complexity of our environment and we should be mindful of that and continue to study and research and make policy in light of that uncertainty host: our guests it's on energy and intelligence and is planning a trip to afghanistan.
what do you hope to learn there? the president has made a decision that we will largely leave afghanistan with our ground troops at least in significant numbers by the end of 2014. i actually agree with that. we should have a smaller footprint and afghanistan. i don't oppose the president's decision but he should have done differently. he should not have told the bad guys we are leaving but when we draw down a set of trips, we still have enormous interests in the middle east. in spite of the president's statement a few weeks back, he said the war is terror and that is just wrong. when someone pointed to in the nose, you cannot walk away. they may punch you in the nose again traded that bring the fight to you, you have to continue to do battle. we still have radical islamists
that want to kill americans. i want to see what the impact of that drawdown will be on some absolutely critical resources we have in afghanistan now may be possible to maintain that security in the face of this drawdown of our troops. host: is there a danger of staying there for ever? , there is always a danger of staying somewhere forever buried there is no panacea for that. there is a risk of bleeding too soon and there is always things that need to be balanced -- there is a risk of leaving too soon and there's always things that need to be balanced. we also have enormous financial pressures and is expensive to maintain soldiers around the world. i know how expensive it is to drive a tank around germany and pay the soldiers and to all the things we need to do for the folks we have asked to defend there is definitely a risk of staying anywhere for ever.
host: new jersey, republican, you are on. caller: good morning, i keep hearing everything about china best and china that spirit that we have to compete with them. their economy will start to slow down and with all this carbon they have in the air, they have to actually shut down their country in certain sections in bigger and bigger sections because the air is so bad they cannot breathe. with that in mind, don't realize these are just monopolies put in long ago be its saudi arabia or the bush family? they gain by keeping this treasure in the ground and that's all we have to use. they have been monopolizing everything and making solar expense of so they have this buried treasure that our troops can defender takeover in iraq and iran. this is insanity. amos."e book of
all the weather is getting better and everyone lives on the kuster id you have help coming and you deserve it. coming and youl we could talkt: about the extreme climate issue that has been happening around the country. we have everything from heat waves and droughts to hurricanes and tornadoes. guest: i think the best analysis shows that our tornado activity in kansas has been laurel last year's that was not prior years. i don't hang my hat on that. this is a long-term proposition. this data is incredibly inconclusive. to say we had a bad start managers or we had a heat wave that came through kansas and connect that back to a u.s. policy activity, no one has demonstrated they have the capacity to understand the ramifications of that.
his comment about china is true. while their economies not slowing, the rate of growth is. china will come to be more environmentally conscious one thing we take for granted is that only wealthy nations have the capacity to really take care of the environment. the wealth creation engine have in the united states has permitted us to have cemetery systems that are world class, have air that is far superior than many places in the world. to put policies in place that will destroy that wealth runs at the enormous risk of creating a total incapacity to deal with the environment in the decades pompeo,ngressmen mike let's hear from her a on our independent line. caller: good morning. host: talk to us.
caller: talking right now. congressmen, how did you get from orange, calif. to kansas? guest: it was a long and winding road. i grew up in santa ana, california and went to college at the u.s. military academy at west point and it is a long path from there. to orange hight school because of you into aren't high school, you are a panther. once a panther, always a panther. amogosi went to los high school. caller: respectfully, you are on the wrong side of the issue. i want you to remember that the epa was created by richard nixon from yorba linda, california and now you are in kansas and you have the wherewithal to do something. your line against the epa and all the things we're doing to save the air is absolutely
wrong. that's all i can say and thank you very much for listening. guest: thank you. host: let's go to florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning, everyone. i want to comment to the congressman and the moderator about an earlier caller from wisconsin. they asked if you would rather work in a whole or work and i went to bell. worked underground for 26 years and i will tell you that it was one of the best experience i have ever had. it is a different world underground trade is always 60 degrees. nottually, i probably will see a my lifetime but i think that coal is our most abundant natural resource for energy. it will come back because of this great country can put a man on the mon, and the space shuttle up and down, we should be able to do something for these electric plants to burn this coal and have it come out
clear than the air can produce itself. i probably will munsey in my lifetime but i think future generations will. guest: thanks for your comments. i have talked to lots of coal miners who enjoy the work that they have and make good laws for them and their families. i also believe we will continue to improve the efficiency and reduce the carbon emissions are coal-fired power plants across america -- we have been tried to put a plant in kansas for a long time now to replace an older one, one that would be more efficient. i will be darned if are former governor and now the secretary of hhs has denied doing this and the epa did not make that impossible as well. i hope that coal-fired power plant gets built. it is a new plant the new technology and provides important energy resources for folks in the midwest. host: from "the washington post"
- guest: that's remarkable when a group sets out to it destroy economic activity. i appreciate the sierra club being honest about their objective. coal-fired power plants across america have been closing and there's a handful of reasons for that. cheap and abundant natural gas is very competitive and that's what markets do. we have enormous coal resources in america. we have bouncing back between energy ancestry but there's a deep connection one question was
about the russians not behaving well. with respect to mr. snowden. they have enormous energy resources and provide natural gas to europe from the old soviet union. today, we have an opportunity in america to produce that natural gas and send that to our allies. their geopolitical implications for the president's energy policy. if america can continue to be an energy producer, our power and influence throughout the world will increase as well why host: final question -- it looks like the senate will be able to pass the immigration bill later this week. we sell the border security amendment advance last night. "the washington times"said as a -- says is exposing a republican rift in the senate. what is the point of all this
action if your colleagues in the house cannot pass their own version of the bill? "guest: i read a little bit of the security legislation which is very long. it was released on friday and that is the one of the most unfortunate things. i don't think anybody knows precisely what is in the amendment. from what i have read and the summers i have seen, it is not really going to achieve the border security i know americans want. when you talk about the house, folks say there is a fight inside the gop. there is an enormous fight inside the democratic party about immigration. the big unions don't like immigration. they want mass of legalization and fast. what they don't want is a system of laws to let these folks come in and guest worker programs. there is an enormous fight inside the democratic party, too. was fighting the senate bill. in the house, will take an
approach the american people have respect for. we will work piecemeal through immigration law and not produce 1200-page bills that would test anyone's capacity to understand. we will do it in a thoughtful way and it will actually go through a committee. boy, if the senate had done that, we would have a better piece of legislation. committees will start to work their way through it and the american people will get to have some input. if we can get this right and get our border security, perhaps we can make this fundamental change in immigration that everybody thank host:mike pompeio, you for your time today. coming up next, we are joined by senator chris murphy, democrat of connecticut and we'll talk about the latest on the nsa and what is happening in syria. later on, scott amey on government oversight will talk about the size and scope of u.s.
intelligence contractors. first, this news update -- >> more on the immigration bill making its way through the senate -- in remarks earlier on cbs "this morning," paul ryan says the senate's advancement of stronger border security provisions makes it more likely that immigration reform will pass the house and become law. he said the house will do its own legislation and will not take up the senate bill if it is passed this week. he said that yesterday's vote in the senate advancing a provision that doubles the number of border patrol agents and calls for hundreds of miles of new fencing along the border with mexico helps make this final passage even more likely. leaker, o the nsa senator john mccain spoke earlier about this. he said the diplomatic row between washington and moscow over mr. snowden is reminiscent of the cold war. he says the obama administration
must be tougher in its dealings with both russia and china center mccain added that both china and russia are both trying to assert their own spheres of influence and the u.s. must respond more firmly. he accused president obama of leading from behind. he says he believed the 30-year- old snowden is in russia even though the country's foreign minister vehemently denied that earlier today. senator mccain added that the russian president, vladimir putin, continues to stick his thumb in our eyes. that's an update in a situation in that syria. -- and afghanistan. a taliban assault on the presidential palace has left regards dead. the militant group had said all eight detectives died in the early tuesday attack. on one of the most secure parts of the afghan capital. those are some of the latest headlines on cspan radio. 1400ere are about monuments and markers on the
battlefield. the big building. was the 18 80's and 1890's. the men who fought in the spell or getting older, they wanted to make sure it was remembered. they will do that by building monuments. in modern times, we have other ways of commemorating things like that the back in those days, that's of a commemorative their service here. this is a monument to the soldiers and to their leaders like john buford. the monuments help us enter the story and they're placed on the ground or the units fought and most of the monuments are union monuments. a unionattles and victory in a northern state, by the time the war ends, there's not a lot of money in the south to build monuments. especially in a northern state. >> live all day coverage of the 150 anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, sunday starting at 9:30 eastern with authors.
it is followed at 5:30 with your calls and tweeds. .- tweets at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with a keynote speaker and dramatic readings from eyewitness accounts of the battle followed by a candlelight procession to soldiers national cemetery. at 9:15, more calls and tweets. americansunday, on history tv, on american -- on c- span 3. host: senator chris murphy is our guest, democrat of connecticut who sits on foreign relations committee and others. thank you for being here this
morning. we have headlines on edward snowden. we saw this from the ap just this morning -- he is rejecting u.s. demands for extradition. what can the u.s. do now? guest: there is no honor in what if he claims to care about the freedom of expression and right to privacy. he's doing a tour of countries that have not honored that tradition and those values. i certainly agree with what jay carney says yesterday and what john kerry said and what president obama said. this is disappointing that areosed allies like russia
sheltering someone who has violated u.s. law. i hope we will continue to apply pressure to the russians. we're disappointed in the actions of the chinese. this guy will be brought to justice. i understand we have to have a debate about the level of protection we provide american citizens. i was someone who did not vote for the re-authorization of the picture? but the way snowden is doing this is not the way to go and hopefully our allies will eventually recognize it is better for him to be brought to justice in american courts or chance to make his case rather than on tv. host: secretary kerry takes a similar line to you -- as edward snowden broke a lot in your opinion? guest: from everything i know,
it appears he has broken below but we don't decide that until someone is tried in court. it certainly seems he has acted in a way that should bring him before the legal system. the irony that has been pointed out is that if snowden was in these countries and criticizing their violations of human rights and the restrictions of the press and their violations of individual privacy, maybe he would have a leg to stand on but he is enjoying the shelter of these nations while saying nothing about the fact that they violate the privacy of their citizens in ways the united states does not. what a courto see says in terms of the violation of law but it seems like he has done enough to begin the legal process. host: yesterday, a reporter asked president obama if he talked with the russian leader, bal -- vladimir putin about edwards noted. [video clip] ." >> what we know is that we are
following all the appropriate legal channels. we are working with various other countries to make sure that ruled law is observed and beyond that, i will refer to the justice department that has been actively involved in the case. host: how does this make the u.s. will look to overseas allies as well as enemies? guest: it is more a question of our allies look. it is russia, not united states, which is violating international norms of extradition, not us. i think this is a question much proposed to them. i think we should back up from this immediate case and have a bigger discussion about the programs we're talking about. some people have worked for the u.s. government or contacting agencies, don't get to pick and choose when they protect classified information. at the same time, there are many of us who have historically been uncomfortable with the role of
federal government surveillance programs. there are those of us who want to have a broader conversation about the amount of our war on terror that is being conducted outside the eyes of congress or the american public. t is not just this metadata program. it is what we may be in syria and what we have done in pakistan and what president bush did with respect to his wiretapping program. there's too much happening as we try to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks. if the united states public does not know this. we need to have a more important discussion that is broader about the level of classified and covert activities happening today which i would argue is that a different level than what we might of seen 15-20 years ago. host: how much information should senators have? you don't sit on the intelligence committee and you are a freshman senator. should you have access to the same information that members
who sit on the committee have? should be distributed more equally? guest: should have more information. i cannot tell you whether we should have the exact same information. there's a reason why we sit on the intelligence committee. with 535 members of congress, there was a worry that of every single one of them had full access to classified data, it would not remain classified very long. i can understand that concern but right now, there is too big gap much because the amount of information that is classified, the number of programs we are running on a military and surveillance basis or so much bigger and broader than they were a while ago that we are not able to make educated public policy decisions on the way in which we protect this country and only a select number of members of congress can hear about the dron e program in pakistan or information gathering program here at home.
sits senator chris murphy on senate foreign relations and the labor committee. let's hear from sharing, in minneapolis, democratic column. caller: good morning, i want to ask the senator about -- two questions -- was snowden able to leave hong kong with all the reporters? i'm sure we have people of security that could have been, when he was first spotted at the hotel and giving out information, it seems that someone should have been watching him at that time, before he was able to leave his luxury hotel. host: do you think is passport should have been revoked sooner? caller: yes, absolutely anybody i talk to come all my friends in minnesota, they say the same thing. how can one man get a hold of
all the secrets that he did in such a short amount of time? ant lieve he was safe pl the beginning and someone has been paying this man to do what he has done did anybody track where his money was coming from? to track hisried money? guest: i don't know whether he was a plant or not or working with anyone else. him,respect to capturing we need the help of foreign governments when people we are seeking to extradite are in their territory. the united states does not have enforcement officials are law enforcement officers in hong kong or russia or ecuador. no matter if he was operating in broad daylight or whether he was holed up in a hotel, ultimately, we need on, authorities and
chinese authorities to make that arrest and bring into the united states. once he had fled the united states, once he was abroad, ultimately, that is a question of the choices that other countries are making, not necessarily law enforcement of the united states. whether we should have taken his passport away earlier, i'm not sure that would have made a difference. looks like the chinese and now the russians have made a decision to protect him regardless of his ability to travel with the u.s. passport. host: let's hear from wilmington, north carolina, republican. caller: good morning, i would like to ask the center what he thinks about president obama's role after these revelations because he has been hiding from the camera. onhas not been out front this situation. where is the debate?
president obama and any number of officials in his administration has strongly defended the program that snowden has revealed. i don't think there is any mystery as to what the obama administration's position is on this program. while they have been slow to release information that was previously classified about the program, we do know that the andrmation that was gleaned as likely deported several terrorist attacks in this country. you are talking to a guy who did not vote to reauthorize the patriot act and did not reauthorize the provision that allows this program to go forward. i have never believe there is a choice to be made between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties. i welcome this debate more so than most other people. i don't really think president obama has been hiding on this
whether it is him or his national security apparatus. they have all been pretty clear that they think snow didn't violate the law and what these countries to help us bring him to justice. they fully defend the program he revealed. i'm not sure i will be in full concert with them. a lot of us are taking our time to learn more about this program to see if we need to amend it or end its. host: you were one of four senators who last week formed an interesting coalition. you said you wanted to prevent intelligence agencies from using any funds to support military operations in syria, why? >> this will be one of the few times you will have this kind of bill.
we are all worried about the speed with which we are arming the rebels and syria. to me, there are two problems two the first one is the media because the momentum in syria is on the side of bashar al-assad. you cannot attend a bunch of automatic weapons to the free syrian army. you have to give them serious weapon early like antiaircraft and antitank capabilities. the syrian army is fighting alongside al qaeda. they are the best fighting force on the ground in syria. if you give the deadly arms to the free series army, there is virtually no way to guarantee those arms will not find their way into the arms of al-qaeda. that presents serious national security concerns to the united states. to topple bashar al-assad or able to bring the parties together to a conference, there is likely going to be a civil war that
follows. i think we need to admit that the united states may end up in bell medium or long run simply charming one side of a long-term civil war. it would be one of the most complicated civil wars in some time because it would involve russian interests, extremist interests, iranian interests. i don't believe the united states has shown over the past 10 years with respect to afghanistan and iraq that we are that good at pulling the strings of middle eastern policy. i worry that we get ourselves involved in a quagmire of syria that could last a long time and our arms could essentially extend the bloodshed rather than cut it short. host: york colleague of the democratic caucus and chairman of the senate born's -- foreign elections committee, senator robert menendez had this to say about syria.
do you share his concerns? guest: i do share his concerns and i think the president is in an impossible position. there is clearly unacceptable level of atrocity happening in syria today. bashar al-assad is murdering his people and we have national security interest there beyond the humanitarian concerns. we don't want syria to turn into a haven for terrorists. my worry is that we could in bold and empower the terrorists by armond rebels. we would essentially end up funneling weapons to the very people that we're trying to protect our country against. what we know in iraq is that when the united states invaded, that country became a cause celebre for the international terrorist movement.
iraq became bulletin board material for people recruiting to other people to work against the united states. i worry that would happen and syria. and this wasd assad seen as a u.s.-backed syrian government, that could attract al qaeda rather than rappel al- qaeda in syria. i think there are two sides to this story. if you let syria go, there is a risky become a haven for terrorists. but if the u.s. steps up its presence, we could frankly attract the very people we are fighting. host: senator chris murphy of connecticut, let's go to indiana, on our independent line. i think it is a bad that snowden went to a communist country but i am wondering is the reason he did that because you might remember the soldier
andwas a whistle blower then donald rumsfeld mentioned his name on tv and pretty much destroyed his way of life. i was wondering if something like that would cause this snowden to go to a communist and how did he get in a have that access to that knowledge? i think that is a very important question. old governmentear- contractor get access to very private data about millions of americans? i think that will be one of the most important questions we have to ask and hopefully answer.
your first point is interesting. what kind of incentive structure have reset up for whistleblowers after eight years of the bush administration in where it seemed that if you tried to out some of the things happening in the administration, you're treated poorly. i figure it's a good conversation for us to have here. there is a difference between someone that was exposing grave, physical abuse within the iraqi prison system and someone that was essentially making public a clandestine, classified program within the nsa. i would argue those are two different cases. might worry here is that we should not be in a position where every government employee and every contractor just gets to pick and choose what date did
they think should be classified or not. that would result in absolute chaos within our intelligence committee. we have a debate as to whether the prison program should have existed in the first place or more people should have done about it, there is no doubt there's an enormous amount of information within our intelligence committee that needs to remain classified and the cat have a standard in which employees and contractors can choose what remain secret and what doesn't. host: so we get back to the catch-22 of having that debate. a question with the present program. would it have compromised the program if people know it existed? i think that is a legitimate question to ask. especially if you know there are
safeguards on the back end, even private safeguards. there were private intelligence court that reviewed data before but this assumption that the american public cannot handle this information is probably false. i think americans to date note that they live in a different world. may need to beon available to authorities in a way that it does not need to be 20 years ago. think we need to do a better job of leveling with the american people and give them credit that we can -- that they can handle this brave new world. host: chris murphy served as representative in the u.s. house for connecticut for three terms and served in the general assembly, the state house, the state senate, and he also had a career with a firm in hartford, conn., real-estate and banking laws.
jersey, on our democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressmen, given the fact that president obama has prosecuted seven people on the espionage act, more than any other president has done, and in spite of the fact that mr. smith and has provided in permission only to the american people and not to any government, what law did he really break? effect of a side outsourcing our security to private firms that have no accountability? decide unilaterally to de classified information whether it be to the american people or you do to reform government, you have violated a law when you make these programs public through a british newspaper, that is a full and complete de-classification of
the information. your second query is important. essentially sold off enormous pieces of our national security apparatus to private contractors. that will be one of the most critical questions here is how on earth to a non-government employee who had only been around for a and above bulova years, get access to this data and especially in the context of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we have decided to conduct a majority sometimes of our operations with private security contractors. the have all sorts of access to data that used to be just tell with the demands of our federal an employee, military, and intelligence personnel. i think this a big discussion to have. i was in afghanistan a couple of months ago at one of the biggest bases in afghanistan, 30,000 personnel on the base.
the 10th as of denmark troops. 20,000 of them are contractors. nobody realizes that sometimes the vast majority of our personnel and places like afghanistan and iraq are not state department soldiers or soldiers. we've had big, bright lights hearings on or profiteering. there are people getting rich off of war today, whether covertly or overtly, and the united states congress should be doing a lot more investigation into that fact. host: we will look more at u.s. intelligence contractors. amy with will be scott the project on government oversight. the broader question of these security companies and the piece of the pie they have when it comes to u.s. intelligence
-- a 70% of u.s. u.s. intelligent budget goes to contractors. ofare looking at thousands employees, a lot of them with top-secret clearance. members of congress have these firms in their districts, and their states. how do you propose bringing more sunlight to the -- or getting more of a discussion going about the issues you just brought up? guest: president eisenhower warned us about the military- industrial complex, and it is bigger than ever before. it is not the companies that make the guns in the tanks in the plains, it is all the contractors that provide services. it used me that we relied on the private industry to to provide the goods but the federal government provides the services. that is no longer a dichotomy that exists. i introduced a piece of legislation when i was asked member that shed some additional light on this issue. i was at a hearing in which erik prince, the ceo of .lackwater, testified
blackwater edits i did 90% of its business with the federal government, and yet prince when not tell us what he made -- he said, "north of $1 million, but i will not tell you what that is." his company did almost nothing but federal government work -- and he was taking perhaps four times that of a four-star general. it was unconscionable to me. i passed a law that president bush signed that would require contractors that did 80% or more of the business with the military to disclose how much profit they make and the salaries of their top executives. that law is just becoming operative now. it will hopefully give us a little bit more information about the degree to which taxpayer money is not going to fund intelligence efforts or the battlefield, but instead padding the pockets of defense contracts. this has always been a problem in this country. it is what eisenhower warned us against.
but it is a bigger problem, as you said, today than ever before. regardless of whether the companies are in your district, the united states congress is here to provide oversight. host: let's hear from santa cruz, california. ann is a republican. welcome, ann. are you with us? caller: no, this is lucy from santa clara, california. host: we will take you, lucy. go ahead. caller: there was a woman who asked the question, very pertinent, very serious, and the senator's answer was i don't know. it reminded me of our president -- i don't know, i didn't get that. nevermind me of eric holder, the department of justice -- it reminds me of air colder, the department of justice had, who went before congress and said tom "i don't know that." hillary clinton, things she did or didn't know. she didn't know and she also said "what difference does it make?"
who needs these people? the lack of transparency is criminal. host: what answer are you referring to that the senator dave? -- that the senator gave? caller: about plausible deniability. ,f they don't have any facts they can't be responsible for it is going on the american people is tired of it. there's over 100,000 signatures snowdenasking that mr. be pardoned because the american people -- if this congressman and the senate doesn't know, we know what is going on. host: know what, lucy? i think she's got her tv on remote. guest: this is an interesting point here, that there is a distinction right now in the united states congress between what the leadership of the
house and senate along with members of the intelligence committee know on a daily ongoing basis and what other members of congress know. ad she is right to ask question as to how can you govern our country when there are only a subset of members of the senate and the congress that have vital information about national security? at a time when maybe our covert actions work stream of the limited, when we were doing one operation here and one operation here, then i could understand that only a handful of memories of progress needed to know. but now our covert activities have a very important foreign policy consequences. i will come back to pakistan as an example. i am not violating any classified information to tell people what everyone already knows, which is that we have been for a long time dropping bombs out of drones into the tribal regions of pakistan, done in a covert manner so that most members of the senate, most
members of the house don't hear aboutthis, but i can read it in newspaper article after newspaper article, book after book. the intelligence community hasn't done a real good job of keeping it secret from the pakistanis, who they are dropping bombs on. and yet because the only way i can get that information is from newspaper articles, conversations with pakistani officials, makes it very hard to do oversight. they are important foreign oficy consequences understanding u.s.-pakistani relations when we continue to top-secret bombs on a major region of the country. with the very pleased president's announcement that on that particular program we are talking about bringing it under control control of the department of defense instead of the cia. but i think lucy's underlying frustration is a real one, that we need to know what every member of congress knows instead
of the federal programs. host: nathan, democratic caller. caller: good morning. first of all, thank you, brian lamb, for c-span. libby, you have the finest female broadcasting voice i've ever heard. host: thanks. what is your comment? caller: i'm a proud constituent of the senator. senator, i want to praise you for your appearances during new town. you are the new face of connecticut and i'm very proud to be your supporter. i appreciate you sending linda .cmahon back to the wrestlers and i want to remind lucy, who called it for me, the president reagan did not know about iran contra and president nixon did not know about watergate, both of which were proved to be lies, and i don't take any the people she quoted as saying they didn't know from the present administration have been proved to have allied at this point -- to have lied at this point.
so thank you very much, senator, especially for your opinion on syria. i think it would be a disaster to get involved in another civil in my opinion is that afghanistan brought down the soviet union, not president reagan. i think christopher murphy is a bright and rational and righteous voice for the people of connecticut or thank you very much. , nathan.ank you i think you bring up a point in your counter to lucy's argument, that this issue about what information members of the senate and the house have about clandestine programs has nothing to do with party. this is an issue that should unite republicans and democrats, and i think part of the reason why you see our serial resolution -- our syria is
allusion being purely bipartisan, to republicans, two democrats is that we share that concern with syria, that we worry that if we work to go into covertly -- i don't know what will be the decision -- that that will exacerbate the trend line of withholding information from embers of congress. this is an issue that should and will unite republicans. host: your constituent brought newtown shootings that happened after you are elected and before you were sworn in. you see reporting from the "new york daily news." "president obama tells newtown families not to give up in the battle for gun-control laws." you can see there is someone with a photograph of one of the boys killed in the shooting. has this been a failure of the effort to get more gun laws in the works -- on the books? what do you meet from -- what you read from the president's message, and how receptive our people from sandy hook to that,
"don't give up" message? guest: clearly it is a failure where 90% of the public wants background checks before anyone can buy a gun and timers can't deliver that. of course it is a failure. we should remember that the senate did get 55 votes for the bill. in any other democracy that would be enough to move it to the next chamber. but even if we had gotten 60 votes on it is doubtful that john boehner and the republicans in the house would've brought the bill up. i think about those families every single morning when i wake up, i think about them the last thing before i go to bed. having the to this tragedy, having been on the site at the firehouse within hours of the or our days in which i wish i didn't see some of the things i saw -- there are days in which i wish i didn't see some of the things i saw. what is listed my spirit even though we did fail to get a bill to the president's desk is -- you asked the response of the
families to the message from the --sident, "don't give up" their lives have been changed. these families and not going to give in until the laws of this country change. they have been down here in washington just in the last couple of weeks and ultimately we are going to get a bill passed, because those families are unstoppable, and the movement is unstoppable, which has been fundamentally transformed by what happened in newtown. host: senator chris murphy served as a member of the house and represents the fit -- rep is in a different district, which is represented at the fifth, which included newtown, connecticut. hi, janet. caller: i just wanted to mention the lady lucy. i go along with her, and you ask what this, what that, and they don't answer anything. and hicks, i think his name was -- they demoted him, and who demoted him?
you can't get anything out of these people. the thing i wanted to mention is the 200 tanks given to the egypt, 16 of our best airplanes, $103 billion, and the man hates us. he says he wants to destroy america and israel. he said that right on tv. i just don't understand this. what's going on? we don't have anybody in control but is anything in the government? -- we don't have anybody in the till who knows anything in the government. who is running the place? guest: i think it is a bit of an overstatement, but let's talk about this issue of foreign aid, because i certainly understand people who get frustrated and say, wait a second, why are you giving aid to country like egypt or a country like pakistan, where it seems like they are subverting national security interests rather than advancing them? i wish the business of foreign aid was perfectly clean, in which we support only people that agree with us 100% of the time. but we have interests in
regions where certain doctors aren't with us 100% of the time. dofrustrating as it is to with the egyptians, they have been historically a stabilizing force in that region, helping to broker very important piece agreements with israel, one of our most important allies across the globe. in pakistan, although that country absolutely has undermined our efforts in afghanistan, and they possess a nuclear weapon, and what we are trying to prevent is a taliban- like extremist government taking over the reins of power in islamabad and having possession of a nuclear weapon. that means that we do end up having to support our government there that isn't always supportive of american interests, but is much better than having an islamist government with the ability to use a nuclear weapon against the .nited states and u.s. allies
foreign aid is sometimes a messy business, but we have to look at it as part and parcel of our military work all across the globe. there are important countries that may not always agree with us, but we still need to maintain lines of communication with. host: questions for you on our facebook page, senator murphy. writes in since you are a member of the health committee, what are you doing to help students stay away from debt, along the lines of student loans? he wants to know whether you are making either education a cooperative effort with the labor force. talk to us about student loans and other issues. guest: i think the way nathan makes the question is really important. what are you doing to help students stay away from debt? i worry that often we get caught in an argument here in which we can just talk about how we can help students get more debt, because if you are just talking about student loan policy and federal aid policy, you are
just continuing to feed the beast, which is the cost of higher education, which continues to spiral out of control. i know that problem better than any other senator because i'm in this unique position of still paying back my student loans. my wife is paying back her student loans. we are trying to capture as much of our income as we can to save future two little kids' education. i am paying for higher education on both ends as are millions of other families. the effort i am going to undertake in the senate is one of trying to hermetically reduce the overall cost of heretic -- dramatically reduce the overall cost of higher education. there are opportunities to that. there are colleges that are looking to move four-year degree programs to three-year degree programs, efforts to consolidate undergraduate degrees with graduate degrees, online education getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper. should be a much more robust conversation about something changing the way by which we awarded agree. why do we still stick to this -- why do we still stick to this
arbitrary number of credits that is a vestige of a higher education system build 100 years ago? why don't we awarded degrees based on skills that you get after two years or five years? first and foremost, beyond aid policy and loan policy, we can't afford the system we have today. it is way to bankrupt this nation, just as we need more and more people to graduate from higher education. to nathan's point, that is the work i'm going to be doing. host: richard in philadelphia, independent line. morning, richard. caller: good morning. i remember reading a book by lippmanitman -- walter on how much the public really knew about foreign policy come and in this case, classifying, declassifying, how much the public would be able to know, anybody here listening to the inator, and relation -- relation to informed opinion on
it comes to foreign policy. that is one thing that comes to my mind. the other thing is the concern that is interesting is not snowden, butk or the technology. it seems that the level of that is being able to be developed and is in the private sector hands is also as dangerous and relationship to having access to the public bus 'sformation -- public information come with them not telling us what they already have, as anything else. weple talk about jokingly are watching with the computer system that played on "jeopardy!" the ability of this information and data, and i am able to move to another level, and i assume that this level of technology that has been placed under a secret development is part of, now, everyday life --
host: richard, let's get a response from senator murphy. guest: i think, again, there is a really important question here, that with the development of new technology, with more of our lives existing online, why is there now a juxtaposition between the security of our information online and security of our information within our household? today still, if the government wants to search her closet, they have to get a warrant to do so and you are going to know it if you do it. -- if they do it. but if they want to search her conversations on the internet, if they believe that you are talking to a foreign agent, they get a public war for it and they don't need to tell you about it. we have different levels of privacy today, in large part because of these technologies. as chairman patrick leahy said on the floor of the senate just yesterday, i believe, as he
introduced new legislation that would provide an additional series of levels of oversight on our intelligence community, he said that when it comes to mining our data online, just because we can doesn't mean we should. i sometimes feel that our intelligence community thinks that because the information is out there, because the technology allows us to go out and get it, that we should. we historically have required much greater levels of protection when it comes to how the government pries into our lives and we still require it when it comes to what you may do in our homes. i think that we should be having a conversation about additional levels of protection online as well. host: final question, this one back to afghanistan. host: we've seen some back-and- forth with hamid karzai, power plays there.
what is your assessment? guest: it is difficult to watch president karzai would hold entry into talks with the taliban sibley because the taliban and is raising a flag that he objects to with respect to their headquarters in doha. it seems to be more politics than policy. the reality is that if we want to exit relatively grainy from afghanistan, -- relatively cleanly from afghanistan, we have to have a conversation where the taliban has some rights to be part of the next government and karzai has to recognize that, and he will eventually. but frankly, we made a mess of afghanistan. because we were distracted by air act for almost a decade, we essentially created the problem that we are trying to solve. had we focus all of our efforts on afghanistan from the beginning, we wouldn't be where to turn the. not story from afghanistan to iraq, but our problems in afghanistan are related to the mistake we made in iraq, and it is another example of the enormous
disaster that was president bush's their wa war in iraq. host: senator chris murphy, democrat from connecticut, thanks so much for your time today. guest: thanks, libby. host: next, we will take a look at it role of contractors and intelligence. scott amey is our guest, with the object on government oversight. first, this update from c-span radio. "new york times" reports that federal regulars are set to sue jon corzine over the collapse of mf global anti- brokerage firm's misuse of -- anti-brokerage first misuse of public money during its final days. the former new jersey governor and u.s. senator ran the firm until his bankruptcy in 2011. the commodity futures trading commission plans to approve the lawsuit as soon as this week tom the agencyre move, i has informed mr. corzine's
lawyers that it aims to file the civil case without offering him the opportunity to settle. it sets up a legal battle that could drag on for years. economic is from the commerce department is our shows orders for durable goods increased 3.6% last month, matching april's gains. most of the increase is due to a surgeon to marshall aircraft orders -- a surge in commercial aircraft orders. ,tock futures already higher suggesting that stocks may recover from the recent selloff. the head of the opening bell, dow futures are up about points. turning to the environment, president obama is set to propose steps to limit pollution from coal-fired power plants and boost renewable energy production on federal property. this from a speech today at georgetown university. he said to announce that he is watching a presidential memorandum watching the first ever federal relations on carbon dioxide from existing power plants, looking to curb the gases blamed for global warming.
this despite opposition from republicans and some energy producers. you can hear the speech at 1:35 p.m. eastern time on c-span radio. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> there are about 1400 monuments on this battlefield. the peak monument building period is the 1880s and 1890s. as the men who fought in the battle are getting older, they want to make sure that what they did here is remembered, and they will do that by building monuments. in modern times, 20th and 21st century, we have a way of commemorating things like that, but back in those days, that is how we can memory to service their. his is a monument to the soldiers, monument to the leaders. the monuments really help us .nterpret the story most of the monuments are union monuments. quite honestly, by the time the
war ends, there is not a lot of money in the south to build monuments, especially in northern state. live all-day coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, sunday at 9:30 eastern, with historians, scholars, and authors. followed at 5:30 with your calls and tweets for -- at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony, with keynote speaker goodwin, followed by a candlelight procession to soldiers national cemetery. at 9:15, more calls and tweets for peter carmichael.
all day sunday on american history tv on c-span3. continues.n journal" host: scott amey is general counsel on the project on government oversight. thank you for joining us today. we're talking talking about the role of contractors in u.s. intelligence. how does that role work? how big or significant our contractors to the intelligence field? guest: very significant. contractors play a vital role in our homeland security and intelligence network. there is a mystery as to how many contractors there are, the contracts, the work they are .oing we know they are doing i.t. work, computers, engineering, .&d, but it is difficult we don't have the same transparency from the normal contracting world, so it is anyone's guess. host: from "bloomberg
businessweek," 70% of the intelligence budget goes to contractors. how has this changed over time? give us a sense of the history. guest: the history is that in the 1990s we had a downsizing of intelligence workforce, especially the federal government reports -- federal government workforce. nine/11 happened and there was an immediate surge that we had to bring contractors to supplement the work force. that is where the problem. we didn't have the capabilities and said the government. we brought in contractors to ramp as fast as they could, without the necessary oversight over the contracts and the work being performed and there were many other headache that comes with it. you are also paying a lot of money, worrying about whether this work should be performed by asernment employees, issues well as issues with security clearance. that is problematic, as we have way too many people in and
outside the government. with top-secret information. host: and it sounds like you are trying to fill in some of the gaps. guest: we are, and it is putting together a puzzle. with the public companies, publicly traded companies -- obviously, there is fcc rules and the galatians that require them to make public filings and take their board as where is -- keep their board as well as their shareholders in the know, but a number of these are privately traded and your previous guest, senator murphy, alluded to that, that with blackwater it was difficult to get information from a privately held company. there are gaps in what we know, and due to the fact that the intelligence community is off the budget sheets, we don't get a lot of information. through the years we have bits and pieces here and there, although 70% of the money goes
to contractors -- that is an old 2010. from 2008, 2009, i used testimony in 2011 but it is hard to tell -- is a going higher, lower? we know that after nine/11 there was a major surge that included contractors, and that, according to dni estimates -- a 20% surge in the workforce, and when you talk about that 70% figure, you are talking about goods and services. it is difficult to even figure out what these contractors are actually providing. are they providing satellites? are they providing computers and software? is it services thomas a buddy sitting in a desk it generally -- is it services, somebody sitting in a desk generally? most of these contractors are inside the nsa, inside the cia. at that point there is a blend of workforce, and it is difficult to tell the difference between who is a government and
is a contractor nowadays. governmenting about contractors with scott amey of the project on government oversight. he testified before congress in ?011 about whether -- why contracts continue to receive taxpayer dollars and how to strike you right workforce balance. host: scott amey, what laws exist in terms of lobbying and political donations? guest: there is transparency in that world. one of the benefits to our political system is that there are lobbying disclosures, campaign finance disclosures, disclosure of money that is graduated by companies and the tax by the individuals.
we get to see that. a few years ago we pointed the coined the term "the politics of contracting." you get into those issues, how much these companies spend on lobbying, how connected they are to federal agencies they are trying to work for. how much their giving and campaign contributions and individual donors and spouses. at that point, it ends up being an incestuous relationship. you have contact dollars that may not be going to the best and the brightest of the most well- connected. that is a problem in our system. host: tell us about people who go from working in government to working for the contractors, vice versa, the so-called revolving door. it is alive and well in washington, d.c. and the federal government and it is an accepted practice. it is a stepping stone to the industry, where you have seen it
with edward snowden -- he went with the cia for a few years and get the security clearance and that catches and over at booz allen, and it could be any other contractor, but they cash in and move to the private sector, and we often see them moving back into the administration and the federal government in a senior position. host: can you give us an example? guest: well, you have clapper, who has moved out of booze out, the nsa, mike mcconnell thomas -- mike mcconnell, there is a list -- james woolsey. even dr. ronald sanders, the head of -- and associate dni, in charge of the event apple planning, and then he is over at booz allen. these are companies that are making every attempt to seize every business opportunity they can and federal government contracting. a lot of people want to put
youe on contractors but also have to point the finger at the federal government. first, the agencies. it is a somewhat bad position because they have to ramp up and do a lot of this work. commerce has efforts to reduce , andize of the workforce they decide that we have to shrink the size of the federal government workforce. at that point it comes to the cost, but at the same time, it is something that we need to worry about, are we over relying on contractors? host: scott amey, hundred of government oversight -- project on government oversight. hi, david. caller: thank you for taking my call today. i appreciate it. i have a question for guest this -73ning concerning the 1972
civil service act. i was wondering where he stood on that, and whether or not he was in support of her return to that, and where pogo stored on that also goodn to give you background, i have family members who benefited from the civil service act and spent years working for the federal government and have long since retired with good and impeccable service records. i was wondering where the u.s. in support of her return to that and whether he thinks that will benefit the country in the long run. i appreciate your time today. , i'm not familiar with all the details on the act, but overall, i think that what we need to do is better plan ,ow we support our workforce both contractor, military, and civilian, and we need to do so wisely. we need to look at issues with
ethics and that governmental function and also cost. pogo put out a report where we started to compare the cost of contractors to civil servants and we found that contractors were charging 1, 2, 3, almost five times more in certain interests is -- in certain instances. and we did a comparison last year and we looked at the workforce at the department of defense and military and civilian contractor, and we found that contractors were nearly three times more expensive than civilian employees. three sequestration and some of the cutting that we are currently encountering, we see that civil servants were the first to go -- civil servants suffered hiring freezes, civil servants were the ones that have suffered cuts in their salary, or freezing of their salary, hiring freezes. we need to do a better job. we need to know how many people make up our entire government workforce. currently we don't know how many contractors are currently supporting government efforts in and around federal agencies.
that is a problem for the federal government. only the department of defense gives an actual number of contractors that it employees and has working to supplement its work, that is problematic. buying to get to smarter. we have to hire a workforce, but we need to make sure that when we do so we hire workforce where we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely and not just believing in the myth that contractors come in and to do work better and a lot cheaper when a lot of the data come even the data from dni, shows that we are spending more money on contractors that we are on public servants. that is we need to focus our energy. georgia, john, independent line. caller: how's it going? i have a question -- i know there are informal ways of those who are in intelligence community giving away secrets that the government may have,
but i wonder if there are formal channels the government may have for individuals and list concerns about the privacy rights of citizens and whether those informal channels are being threatened by the independent contractors, who may have -- we may not have access or the police may not be able to maneuver or live to their concerns -- or the employees may not be able to maneuver or if concerns the way our government contractor or worker might have. is this a real threat or not a real threat? guest: well, there's a few issues you raised in that question, and one is whistleblower protections. obviously, we do not have a good system currently in place to protect federal government workers that want to blow the whistle or contractor workers. we are seeing more contractors embedded in government offices. we need to make sure that we have a set of laws in place that protect the workforces. currently we don't, and actually, especially with the administration's take on going
after whistleblowers and the number of cases they have brought claiming violations of the espionage act, whistleblowing hasn't gotten any better. we kind of expected that it would during this administration. and you raise questions. a great question is we need a more formal process, and a lot of these leaks, whether they're coming from federal government employees or contractor employees, are due to the fact that we don't have a system in place. , straight, former nsa employees, went -- thomas drake, former nsa employee, went t through the proper channels and still wasn't heard on the waslblazer program, which costing a lot of money that it shouldn't, and a record -- and there were questions about whether that violates privacy, and he felt that the only avenue was to make the information publicly available. the government went after him, multiple charges, settled on the eve of trial to a lesser count
what message is that setting to anyone inside the federal government or the contractor community? it is be quiet, don't raise concerns with what you are seeing with waste of taxpayer dollars or infringement of constitutional rights rather than coming forward. hopefully one of the reforms under this system and this snowden and the intelligence community, but government wide, is that we need a more robust protection system for whistleblowers, that they need federal channels to come forward and i think that leaking information to the press is the first resort. focused on booze allenby is that is where edward snowden work as a contractor. -- focus on booze allen because that is where edward snowden work as a contractor. allen is based in mclean, virginia. why are these names significant?
do they advertise? do they need to advertise? you seevery so often an advertisement in washington, d.c. as you get on the bus or metro system. but for the most part they don't. as you mentioned with senator murphy, there are a lot of companies making money off of the federal government. allen, in their recent sec filings, they reported they received 97% of revenues from federal government contracts in 2012 -- '13, '12, and '11. at that point you have companies that are quasigovernmental, getting almost all their money -- not all countries are in that. 99% is one of the highest i have heard. superior, into, but boeing, raytheon,
contractors that made money off of the defense department through the years, but after 9/11 there was a new pot of money with homeland security money, and discoveries have expanded their portfolios and they are not just making planes and ships and guns but they are now into i.t. services and are analysts and intelligence work with analysis of information and counterintelligence information. this is where the service sector is taken off. through the years, back in fiscal year 2000, the federal government spent over $200 billion on federal contracts. $17we are spending 500 and billion just on contracts. billion just on contracts. out of that money, $300 billion on services. we are bringing in more people into the federal workforce into the contractor workforce that are supplying services to these
agencies. under the myth that this was good for the taxpayer. nobody has question that, certainly within the intelligence community. if you look at the previous hearings on this and some of the , 2007,c, since 2006 - people have said that we are overly reliant on intelligence community contractors. we need to supplement the workforce and we need comparable workforce inside the federal government that is capable of handling all of our long-term needs. homeland security isn't going anywhere in the near future. a quick blip or spike on the radar. homeland security work is going to be here for a very long time. this is something that we should be bringing in federal government employees to do. people often ask questions but they are nibbling around the edges. they have not gotten to a resolution, which is the most problematic. host: our guest, scott amey, is general counsel at the project on government oversight.
he mentioned that booz allen reported that 90% of its revenue comes from government contracts over the past few years. it's a lot of money. it's a lot of money under the assumption that they could do this well. what the government hasn't done his transition. in the needtand after 9/11 to get capable people who could help with the intelligence mission, but at some point we need to look at transitioning some of that workforce, as it is a long-term need, back over into the federal government. .e haven't done it we haven't done it anywhere. this is a problem throughout the federal government, that we are
hiring and spending money on federal contractors without doing cost analysis, without doing hr planning and modeling to make sure that we have the proper balance of the workforce with a whole bunch of other ethical issues. you raise the security clearances issue. we are providing a lot of access to government information to these contract was, -- to these contractors, and we did the same thing with government employees, but in my mind we still have the belief that there is something about public service, that there is a patriotism and public service that you want to serve the public and the public good, and these other types of people that that you are there for 20 or 30 years. through the years we have gotten away from that. it is too easy to transition and come in and gain your security clearance, which the federal government pays for and work for a federal agency and transition into a stepping stone into the private sector and go through the revolving door and be beholden to of order shareholders or wall street rather than the public at large.
it raises concerns. colin let's hear from charlotte, north carolina, republicans line. thank you for c- span, thank you for mr. amey. i had to search through "wired" magazine to learn that mike rogers, head of the intelligence committee, that his wife didn't billions through alphabet soup, a state department contract, and menendez on the other side, the democratic side, embroiled in sexual scandals. how in the world can you have these types of people running the intelligence committee and hope for any plausible answer? and thank you, mr. amey, for your work. i wish you success. this is a quagmire. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. it seems as if there was plenty
of work to go around when you are watchdogging the federal government. you are raising questions about do we have the right people in place, do we have the right topics of interest and ethics and rules and regulations loss we need on the books to prevent people from misusing their positions or information that they may have access to? even with some of these companies they are so embedded inside the federal government that there are personal conflicts of interest where they cash in for their personal benefit or the benefit of others, but then they also organizational conflict of interest where companies are so embedded that you have concerns about whether the companies learn to use of information in one business model that they may have operating with one agency or within an agency, and then they use it and create an unfair playing field. we see that. bruce and has an instance in allen had an booz instance where they had a former
employee walked to the door and allenn to work at booz and came in with a flash drive and provided proprietary information about contracts. the company was punished for that, hit $65,000 penalty -- paid a $65,000 penalty or fine and promised to add ethics an training. you raise good questions about whether we have the proper systems in place to catch this before it starts rather than gotcha oversight later after something actually happens. host: la grange, texas. mike, independent caller. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. scott, i just want to say, not in regards to intelligence contracts, but i was recently watching a documentary about the military, and i saw that one of our latest supply ships had .180 -- 11 navy personnel on it
everyone else was civilian, and they were supplying fuel and every other need to our navy ships. that made no sense to me. when i was in the air force, we had no civil servants at all. it is hard for me to believe that we need our navy ships charging contractors maybe like they did in afghanistan $400 for a gallon of fuel. i'm wondering if that is going on with this contract. how in the world is that happening? if flabbergasted me. i could not believe it. -- didn't meaniat to cut you off there. we would get a response from scott amey. guest: you raise a good concern. we believe in the myth that contracts are cheaper, and as libby mentioned earlier, you have contributions that take
place and we end up in this relationship where we may not be hiring the best and the brightest. and as i mentioned earlier, congress hasn't helped. we can't even higher new federal contractors so when we need commission met, we needed to. to contractors at that point -- we need to turn to contractors at that point and we're stuck paying whatever class they are proposing. the government has handcuffed itself and we have to use contract labor at whatever rates we are paying, and in some of these fields, especially the intelligence community, there may be limited competition. a that point we are in position where the government may be paying rates that are much higher than what we pay civilians, and contractors have at selling tote the government that we need goods and services and they are the only people who can provide goods and services and public servants aren't capable of providing the goods and services and the innovation that the contractors can provide. leaves it hook
line and sinker and we need to change the government and say, can we bring in a workforce that is capable of handling the missions that we need met? bloombergtt amey, " businessweek" did a cover story, "booz allen, the world's most profitable spy organization." "as much as contractors rely on the federal government, the government relies on them much more." do you agree? guest: certainly. rely onernment does over- contractors. we are not even using the word "rely." that comes from ig reports everything down the pike says that we rely on government contractors. that is the culture that we need to change. we need to look at the workforce and bring in the most capable as well as the most cost efficient workforce that we can.
sometimes that may be only the federal government. sometimes that may involve, especially for short-term work, that we need to bring in contractors. but currently the government is operating under that philosophy, that the only place that we can turn his contractors, and that is pretty much the only place that we turn within homeland security, defense, and the intelligence community. , that is a really good question. it is going to be a problem for the federal government. this thing could very easily come from inside the government. i would imagine that they are going to kind of go back and look at the internal policies and procedures, issues related to access to classified information, both top-secret information, sensitive information, a new type of information that is protected. i think we are going to be taking a look at not only booz al and that all contractors to see if security clearances are
limited to the people with genuine need, and also, what where you canures walk out with a flash drive and more information? there are laws and rules on the books to prevent that, but it is enforcement. what these companies are doing in practice, we know that there are a lot of rules and regulations out there. not beingy're followed, if they are generally ignored, if they think that it is procedural, don't worry about it, then at that point we need to get people who are following the rules and relations we have on the books already. host: "the wall street journal was what broke and who has government clearance -- "the wall street journal" broke down who has quit government clearance. top-secret clearance, there is also confidential and secret clearance. cecilia, mississippi, democrat line.
hi.er: i just want to say that this is nothing new, this has been perpetuated for decades. everything needs to be privatized -- and it mainly comes from the republican party. they say that government is involved too much, e-government is over-bloated, too expensive. but if you look at things, they want everything, like the post office -- now they are even attacking schools and teachers, wanting to privatize those and make those charter schools and everything. if there is no respect for public servants anymore -- usually, if you have a private contract, that means that those people have to make a profit. normally it is much more expensive. it is a lie that has been perpetuated for decades, and i am so glad to see someone exposing it. guest: you hit the nail on the head. this has been going on, and in
state and local governments it is even worse than the federal government currently, because you used the word " radicalization those quote -- you used the word " privitization" --we see a lot of them selling off the assets, giving them the right to collect tolls and run highways and streets in airports, ticketing around the city. a lot of state and local governments are doing selloffs because they have a vision -- deficient cash flow and any contractors to take over over the work. that is privatization. what we are seeing in the federal government is outsourcing, where you are bringing in our tractors to supplement the work and take it over and -- you are bringing in contractors to supplement the work and take it over. i mentioned that we jumped from 200 billion dollars in federal contracts to over $500 billion in federal contracts. it is a lot of money, and our
federal government workforce may have plateaued and the level of spending may have leveled off, but nobody is asking questions about the loaded contractor -- the bloated contractor workforce and what we're paying paying these contractors to do the work that includes salary and compensation and benefits and overhead. i mentioned overhead specifically because it is upsetting to think that we are getting -- we are paying overhead, but at the same time, 70, 80% of contractor workers are working in federal facilities. ?hat overhead are we paying for forgovernment is paying the lights and the air- conditioning and many of them -- we are paying these high overhead rates and we need access to that kind of data to figure out line item by line item what we are paying for and why we are paying for it to make a better spending decision, especially when it comes to
federal government contracting. host: earlier this month "the wall street journal" had a piece that pointed out that the cia was choosing between amazon or ibm to provide a service, and it looks at tech, and the bulk of tech spending goes to older comedies, but internet technologies are opening the doors for new entrants like amazon. obligatede contract from the dod in millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, various companies from raytheon to hp and down the line. how do contracts determine who toides what the contract is get -- what the process is to get the contract? guest: even regular contracting does not have as much transparency as we would like to see. i have to request a copy of the contract. i can't see it online, which is absurd in our day and age of
technology, going through a freedom of information act request. it would be nice if all this information was just put up there. just get summary data, and about comes to the intelligence committee, you don't get anything. the number for the it community spread was $42 billion. in doing research, they brought out the big number, and now it is $54 billion. we don't know what we are getting. what is the extra $10 billion going to that we were spending before? you raise a good point about contractors and he was getting the work. -- and who is getting the work. after 9/11, 50% of people getting intelligence or new dod work being contractors that were not in existence prior to 9/11. we're talking about intelligence companies and startup properties but also homeland security company's born out of nine -- born out of 9/11.
we have to ask questions about whether they have the capability. we are talking about new may not have the capabilities we need but they are well connected. that is where we would love to see more transparency, not only the spending, but the revolving door, and other related issues -- where money is going, why these countries are being picked to make sure that we are getting the best and brightest and that we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely rather than relying on, well, it is up to the community to make these decisions and we have to trust that they are doing a good job and what ever summary rethinks the gift of the hill -- summary briefings they give to the hill and rubber stamp is in the best interest of taxpayers. snowden casest shows that we don't have a lot of answers and the checks and balances in the system and the protections we got we had. host: scott amey, general counsel at the project on government oversight.
hi, stephanie. caller: thanks for taking the call. i appreciate the discussion as well as the clarification. however, i think that the points that are being made right now may begin to snowball as we get these answers. whose attitude and perspective i really appreciated earlier, mentioned that these programs appear broad and overreaching, and attorney amey, if you don't mind me calling you attorney amey, also mentioned that they were embedded. his questions were bringing up our super important, -- these questions you are bringing up our super important because i've wondered about them for years. you talk about this one company and the article just brought up about the broad expanse of companies that are getting these contracts, one has to wonder national security
questions are shrouding some of the answers you are potentially looking for as far as what is happening with this metadata, examining line by line each item. and who is getting the information? determineible to what is being done with the information being gathered in addition to the information that is crucial to our national security? is that possible, number one, for people to absolutely delineate without really trying prying into critical information that requires protection. also, i was wondering, the people who want to have a public debate about this, what would you recommend that they do and what would contribute, their personal experiences and what they had to go through over the years -- what should they do? should they have fears regarding the espionage act in discussing these things? host: ok, stephanie, let's roll
that to scott amey. guest: it is very difficult, and i will try to handle your last question first. it would be easy to say go to your members of congress, turned to the project on government oversight or other watchdog organizations out .here, and possibly the media if you come across public information that you feel has overly weighed security against personal privacy. but better said than done. that is, unfortunately, the chilling effect of all these cases that come out, that we don't have the infrastructure in place to provide many protections for you. i don't necessarily think you have to worry about -- unless you were working for the government and you have clearance and access to classified or top-secret information -- and then at that point you need to seek the proper legal advice and go through the proper and release whatever that information is to members of congress where at least you have minimal protection. but you are raising good questions.